The Journey of a FW and a Slave

  "Goreans, in their simplistic fashion, often contend, categorically, that man is naturally free and woman is naturally slave. But even for them the issues are far more complex than these simple formulations would suggest. For example, there is no higher person, nor one more respected, than the Gorean free woman. Goreans do believe, however, that every woman has a natural master or set of masters, with respect to whom she could not help but be a complete and passionate slave girl. These men occur in her dreams and fantasies. She lives in terror that she might meet one in real life."
~ Page 311 - Hunters of Gor 

There once was a woman - a proud, crass, and haughty woman. One who was sure of her worth - priceless - yet, thought little of the emotions of others, as she had no interest in, or patience for emotion, most especially in herself...

She felt well aware of her own worth - priceless - and revelled in a life of hedonism, taking what pleasure she willed, with scant regard to how her fleeting affections affected the lives or feelings of her lovers.

At the slightest sign of "emotional entanglements", her own or another's, she would cut and run, her only explanation being that she didn't want or need said, "emotional entanglements". She left broken hearts, dreams, and people in her wake, unable and unwilling to fathom the idea of romantic love.
When they begged, wept, attempted to woo her back with all manner of gifts, promises, sentiment, frothy emotional appeal, she scorned them for what she viewed as weakness. 

To her, emotions, vulnerability, tenderness, love - these were all nothing but ammunition that could be used against someone, and she would have none of it. Besides, she did not think those emotions of "love" were real anyway. She believed them to be nothing more than lust and attraction, which people mistook for "love".

Not only did she live this way, but she also felt herself above men, and took umbrage at any attempt any of them might make to be gentlemanly, chivalrous, or even, just a helpful and kind person, if she felt they were attempting to "belittle" her. In her mind, anything like opening a door, lighting a smoke, offering to carry or lift something for her, protect her, and all manner of other acts, constituted an attempt to imply she was weak and/or unable to provide or fend for herself.

She would spew profanities and hatred at these men every time, even though most were simply trying to be doers of good deeds and help out their fellow humans. But she couldn't see it that way. She saw only what her narrow, self centred purview provided.

For years, she lived in this manner, her haughty mein only intensifying when she encountered a philosophical way of life which called to her.
This set if beliefs, tenets, ideals embraced nature, freedom, strength, meritocracy, living as one wills within the circle of one's own sword, being true to one's own nature.
There were other, less palatable truths to be found within the philosophies, but they did not apply to her. She was free, and the books containing them seemed to make clear that, being free, she had carte blanche. In fact, it seemed to her that it elevated her to an even higher status.  

She continued in that manner for another year and more; Reading, learning, and reading and learning some more from the then twenty five books on the topic. In time, she began to feel stirrings, curiosities, yearnings which were surely signs of weakness, or possibly even madness, but, as she read, she found an option. She could explore these things within the safety net of a contractual agreement. She could taste the forbidden fruit, yet not fully imbibe.

She had become fast friends during that time with a man and his girl. His curvaceous, supple, voracious, erotic, beauty of a girl. His kajira.
She wanted to incorporate "temporary slavery" into her BDSM activities, but could not imagine consenting to having one's life so controlled all the time like that of his property.

This man agreed to take her on, to train her, within a period of contracted slavery. It would be for nine months, during which, she would be "as a slave".
She spent several hours a week at his home serving and learning how to behave as a slavegirl. There were rules, and a collar, which were in place 24/7, but she still maintained her own residence and had much freedom. There was a contract with a set time frame and a list of 'limits'. She thought of it as ownership then.

It was not, of course, anything like genuine ownership. She was not property. There were areas of her life off limits to him. There was a set time frame. She was simply a free woman playing pretend for a set time.

She did learn many things, positions, formulaic phrases, types, manners, and specifics of service, both casual and formal, garments, dance... The list goes on.
Anyone who had ever seen a real slave in action knew at a glance, however, that she was not one. She was never quite able to learn to move as a slave. She could mimic the movements, certainly, in her rough and stilted manner, but there was no fire. No burning desire to be found pleasing. The things she was learning, she did for her own pleasure - no one else's. 

And it showed.

Of course, this was allowed. She was, after all, at the end of the day, a free woman, not to be expected to serve, dance, walk, crawl, or writhe with the passion of a kajira. How could she?

The contracted term ended, the collar and rules were removed, and they went about their lives as before - friends and playmates. It had been fun, and they still had fun. And, though she would, from time to time, don the garments of a slave, and play a role for a few hours or a weekend at the local dungeon, events, or private homes in the community, that was as far as it went.

It would be another nearly two years before she met the man who would change everything.

It was just easing into the summer of 2002. They were introduced by a mutual friend who knew they were both "into Gor" (the friend's words). As they talked, she found herself kneeling at his feet as if it were the most natural thing in the world. She didn't really think much of it right then, and they developed a friendship that, over time, developed into more.

He was different. Different from any man she had ever known. Much like her friend and former, contractual master in many ways, but so much more, to her at least. She was drawn to him like no other. Enthralled. Her heart opened, so much that it seemed it was bursting. She could no more break her fall than defy gravity. She knew love, of a sort she could scarcely comprehend.

They began living together, and were Companioned to one another just a few, short months later. More and more, he became the locus of her orbit. The very air she breathed. She wanted nothing but to please him. She would do anything for him.

He never tried to push her into anything, but the more she saw that he would not try to "Master" her by force, like so many others had, the more she yearned to submit to him. No - more than submit...
Surrender.
For, much to her mounting terror, she came to understand that this man owned her in heart, mind, soul, in every fibre of her being. In Truth, if not in name. There was no escaping this, and, if she were honest with herself, she did not wish to do so.

After much discussion on the matter, him making certain that this was truly what she wanted and that he felt ready for the responsibility, he officially collared her on July 19th, 2003. She was now owned in the material sense as well as all others.

To her great wonder, she somehow fell deeper still, in her new status. It seemed there was no end to the depths of servitude, yearning to please and obey, to which this could take her.

The first five years were mostly blissful, outside of various curveballs life will throw, as they weathered them together.
She grew ever more and more in her slavery. Her movements, all, from even so much as the simple act of walking across a room or down a sidewalk, or picking up or placing an object, to the tones in which she spoke, and a tilt of her head, now clearly betrayed her for what she was to any in the know.   
She could not hide it any more than she could pretend at it before, even if she so desired. She was kajira, right to her very core. She existed to serve, to be found pleasing. She obeyed even when she wished to do anything but, most of the time.

And when she failed, she felt it to the depths of her soul. No punishment dealt, no matter how harsh, how painful, could compete with the knowledge of having been found lacking. Displeasing.
Her master was her all. He was not her only love, but he was her only master. He may lend her to others, to use, to enjoy, to love, to be trained, but his steel encircled her heart so much more even than it encircled her neck. 

2006, August 16, the girl gazed upon the transfer inked on her left thigh, which would soon be a brand - a kef - marking her forever as what she was then.
She trembled as she lay on the Master's table, the fear growing as the metal strike reddened, then turned to orange, yellow, and finally, a pale straw colour in the torch flame before searing into her flesh in the first strike.
Eighteen strikes later, she displayed the finished piece, standing beautifully as a marked slave, wishing the talendar existed in reality, that she might braid one into her hair.

It was one of the proudest days of her life, and she was thrilled to wear his mark in her very flesh. She was his for eternity. Or so she believed.

But... over time, something changed. 

There was a disturbance in the Force, a glitch in the Matrix, a tear in the fabric of space, time, or dimension. He was displeased. Increasingly so. She knew it. It was clear as a cloudless, summer day, and as stifling as the pressing heat of the same cloudless summer.

She asked her master what she had done to be displeasing. He told her she had done nothing, but it was plain that he was dissatisfied. Discontent. She begged him to tell her how she could do better. BE better. He again told her there was nothing wrong, despite glaring evidence to the contrary.

More and more, he stayed away from home. Spending longer hours at work, and elsewhere. When he was home, he was distant and irritable. He no longer touched her save for accidentally. When she tried to serve him, he seemed affronted and disgusted. When she tried to touch him, seduce him, he turned away, sometimes seemed even to recoil.

She cried daily, knowing she was failing him, but with no idea how to please him now. When they attended lifestyle events, no longer did he have any wish to bind her, beat her - other than for punishment - use her for any form of pleasure or pain.

She knelt for hours, ignored, watching as he used his tools and trusses on others, fetching coffee and water and other needed items whilst they played, which was scarcely acknowledged.

Of course, a slave is owed nothing, but before, he customarily would thank a girl or a boy for their service, and used to thank her much of the time for her service. He still thanked others who served him. But not her. Never her again. She was left to kneel and wait. Ever patient, hoping that if she served him and his other partners perfectly, he might take some notice of her.

She would wait, and when each scene was finished, and they moved on to aftercare, or the back rooms for a different sort of aftercare, she would clean the racks and tools and toys, pack his things away just the same as when it had been she at his not so tender mercies, make sure they had drinks and snacks to fuel them as their other appetites were sated.

And she would kneel again, in an out of the way corner. And wait in silence. Holding back the tears, because she was loath to bring dishonour on him. To make him look bad. She was kajira. It was her lot to wait upon the free. Not the reverse.
At times, other free... friends who had her master's open permission to use her as they saw fit would take pity on her. Would send her to fetch and serve. Or would play with her. But though she enjoyed those things, it seemed to only make the lack more stark to her.
She once, in desperation, when he was done with his scenes for that evening and had permitted her to bring him his coffee, crawled to his feet, bellying before him, kissing his feet, and begged him to do anything with her. Even something she hated, even if it would break her. Piss on her even. humiliate and shame her, anything that might please him, even if it pleased him to degrade and hate her.

He shoved her away from him with his foot, in disgust. As though she were something foul he stepped in.

He then punished her, for a few minor things he had not gotten round to addressing for some time, and perhaps simply because he was disgusted with her, but on this occasion, unlike every time before, there was no discussion of how she might do better. No telling her the slate was clean. He simply took the slave whip and left the room, leaving her to clean up, then sent her home alone. 

After that, he almost never spent a night at home again. He would come by to get clean clothes or supplies.
Not long after, she was sent to another home, ostensibly temporarily, for her own good. Perhaps she simply needed more training, she thought. She would do her best to prove herself. But, of course, that was not to be. She was put to use and generally found pleasing in the house, but her master still wanted nothing of her service, though he still chose to own her.

Finally, on March first, 2010, she met with him in a public place (his choice) and begged to speak freely, which he allowed. She told him how she felt, of her desperate pain, confusion, lack of understanding what had gone wrong. And if they could ever have the love that they once did.
He told her, "There was only one woman I loved enough to make my Free Companion, but she begged a collar."
She then begged him to free her, to be his Companion once more, or, if he did not wish to do so, to sell her or give her away if he did not want her, but to please, please not hold her in the limbo of a slave without a master.
He chose to free her, agreeing that they would be FC again, but that was not so. He had no contact with her for months. When it came time for a yearly, lifestyle camp-out, where they both volunteered, she approached him, knelt to him, and, because he had said they would not discuss their relationship during the event, asked if she could present a hypothetical question.

He allowed it. She asked him, if a girl's master had freed her, saying they would be FC again, but then there was no contact for so long, no replies to queries, nothing, what would he suggest.
He told her that he would tell her to get over it and move on. 

Devastated, but at least, finally having confirmation that it was over, she removed herself from his sight, as he wished, and went to ponder her next steps. 

A couple months later, he had his best friend deliver a letter to her, letting her know that the reason it was over was due to her rejecting him, and the reason for the months and months of no intimacy was that she was still in love with her abusive ex husband of many years ago. He believed this, he told her, because he had heard her say that person's name in bed one night.
She insisted that she had not. That she had said, "Goddammit" (which could have sounded similar to that name in the heat of the moment, perhaps). That she had never in her life cried out any name in bed, save those of deities. But he was clear that he heard what he heard

The man then explained to her that her former master was to be handfasted the following day to the woman he had been seeing for the last nearly two years, and the letter needed to be read and acknowledged, in order for the day to have no pall cast over it.

The girl knew nothing of this other relationship. It had not been disclosed to her. There was no reason for secrecy that the girl could understand. They had been poly, and, so long as it was disclosed, would not have gone against the agreements they had made. Of course, a master is not obliged to keep any promises made to a slave, or to tell her anything, but still, it hurt. Perhaps she had not fully understood her place after all. She had the idea that their agreements and policy of honesty and transparency were still valid, even after she had become property. Foolish slave.

With that realisation, she finally understood what had gone wrong.
There was never going to be a way for her to become pleasing to him again, because he had been finished with her for a long time. 

So, she moved on. She was free, and embraced it. Or, at least, she believed she was free. He had freed her, after all.
He said the words, thus making it true. 

But some time later, when she confronted him asking why several in the community were regarding her as a "runaway slave", he told her that he had only freed her because he felt he had no choice. That by begging to be freed, sold, or given away, despite very clearly also telling him that if his answer was no, her reply would be, "Yes Master", he felt she had withdrawn consent. 

She did not believe this to be the truth, and even if it were, did not feel it in any way negated her freedom, even though his words would cause her to doubt her status on many occasions, she still chose to embrace freedom. She reasoned that it was not her fault that he chose weakness, betrayal, and lies. That was on him. And thus, she remained for several more years. 

In the collar, she had learned what it is to be a woman, truly and fully. She knew herself, now, to be different from men, and no longer felt herself in any way superior to them, or attempted to belittle them for simply being men, and, by embracing their own manhood, she embraced her own femaleness. In fact, she celebrated their masculinity in contrast to her femininity, and her role as a woman in the order of nature. She wrote about what she had learned about being a free woman, from the perspective of a former slave, as she continued to learn to tread the sometimes fine line free women must gracefully maintain. She wrote more about her views on what it is to be a FW. She continued to be active in her local, as well as online Gorean community, eventually being asked to take over leadership of the local Gorean monthly discussion group and gatherings, and later became the keeper of the group's Home Stone. She was happy. She officially collared her kajirus on 2013, April 13th, and later, a kajira, on 2018, March 18, though, sadly, that lasted only a little over a year, as the Seattle area climate was too cold and rainy for the girl to weather (pun intended), so she continued her search for her kajira. 

She enjoyed her life as a free woman, though did miss - and, in some areas, suffered for the lack of - the guiding hand and authority of a free man in her life. So, she began to seek a D/s dynamic, wherein she could retain her status and position as a free woman, but within the boundaries and under the guidance of a strong, dominant man. 

But more and more, especially online, particularly on IRC, others continued to point out to her that once a slave, always a slave. She was branded. Her ears pierced. Many did not see her as free at all, despite her fighting to cling to her status, and refusing to "admit" to being a slave.

Most on IRC refused to even acknowledge her status, consistently referring to her as, "girl", "beast", "slave", "slut", etc, and lowercasing her name (an online convention meant to determine status) when speaking with her.
She feared.. and still fears, all that she could lose by giving in.
But, she was no longer happy trying to fight, so she finally did... at least in the realm of online/IRC. She battled feeling like a hypocrite, as she did not "come out" in the rest of her life as returned to slavery, and did not really plan to. Another thing she despised and judged in the past - people identifying as one thing online and another in real life. Then again, that was mostly directed at those who were owned in real life, yet wanted to be treated as free online. Her opinion is that a slave is a slave, and if one is a slave in their real life, then they are a slave, and that is that. With those who were free in reality, but had an online only "collar", she just didn't take the "collar" seriously. Because if it only applied to when they were online, and not to the rest of their life, offline, then it was not slavery. 

So, she could reasonably say she was still not, in truth, a slave, as she was only subject to her online owner when she is online. He neither had, nor wanted any say over the rest of her life, other than reminding her of bedtime, to help her with her schedule. 

With that in mind, she compartmentalised the IRC part of her life from the rest of her life. Perhaps, hoping that she might find what she truly seeks - something of the best of both worlds, by way of this path.
Perhaps she was only fooling herself, she was happy enough with the arrangement. Not fully content, because she still did yearn for that ever elusive dynamic, rather than simply being owned, however, at least she was no longer having to manage the impossible tightrope of being a free woman who was conditionally submissive to men on IRC. Yes, it meant she has to address other FW as Mistress, and FM as Master, and, speak and emote as a slave on IRC, at which she sometimes bristled, but she had years of experience with that before, so it was pretty easily automatic again, and, in the big picture, is really no skin off her... nose. 

For about a month, she served as well as she could, striving for Exquisite beauty and absolute obedience, as she did before in the collar, even if it was "only" online. She was open to whatever natural progression happened. If it rekindled those fires, she would be happy to go the full distance to surrender to her future master. If not, even with putting full efforts and what small ember remains, then she would know she gave it her best, and learned the truth of her "core". Either way, she knows that she wishes, needs, desires, yearns, etc... to be guided by a strong man. The question is only to what degree is right for her. And she decided that fighting tooth and nail to prove what she thought or decided was right was not serving her goals or happiness, nor leading her to that man, be he her master, FC, or simply a keeper or guardian.
 

Unfortunately, it turned out that the extreme pressure to admit to being a slave, and to go through the motions of declaring herself such was orchestrated by those who did not wish to see her live her own vision of her best self, but by those who were sick of her outspoken nature, her refusal to back down from what she believed, or to take the farce of online roleplay "Gor" seriously and play along, and wished to see her silenced and either made to conform or ousted from all things Gorean. She deliberately chose to take a non Gorean (a BDSM) "room collar" for the specific purpose of avoiding being truly owned and held to kajira standards, while she tested the waters to see if she could feel the slave fires again, before committing to that path fully. By that action, she proved herself unwilling to fall into line, and so was banned from that server. It meant that she no longer could access the room to which she was "collared", so the virtual collar was virtually removed, and the room owner pronounced that she was, again, free. 

 After being forced to step away for a while, she gained some perspective on just how toxic a lot of IRC culture can be, and attempted to reassert herself on her own terms, on another server, with some mixed results. It went over great in the FemDom rooms, where she really does not fit at all with the ... culture, but does have some friends with whom she enjoys conversing. The other rooms - ones where she might find the Dom she seeks, and most of the other servers in general, not so much. 

Again, her past, her brand, her training, the alleged foolishness of freeing a slave, the permanence of slavery in the minds of many, led to restrictions on yet another server, being forbidden to use the name of a free woman, auto-kicked from certain rooms where she attempted to enter with any nick other than those approved by the free, and quickly reported and punished when she attempted to hide in other rooms under her previous nick - her name - or former name, according to some. 

So, once again, she was a "slave" on IRC, but still acting and identifying as free otherwise. One of those was false. Obviously. She felt she knew which one it was, however, that was her opinion, which appeared to be only worth whatever value any given individual hearing/reading found in it.

In the chat rooms, she did her best to keep the snark and attitude at bay, as showing pettiness and rudeness only underscores the idea that she is a mouthy slave, rather than a woman who may possess sufficient grace and decorum to take a place amongst the free, knowing herself at the will of men, but granted freedom as long as she remains properly respectful. 

The idea was that, by being respectful and obedient, yet honest in her feelings and the belief that she was, in fact, not cut out to be a slave, common sense would prevail and men would see that a free woman, desiring to submit to a degree was better than a poor excuse for a slave, obeying only out of duty. 

That turned out not to be the case, at least on most of BDSM geared IRC. The sad reality is that the majority of people there are there for  fantasy and cybersex, and most of the males there really give zero shits about what any woman there is looking for or best suited for. They just want wank fodder and/or ego boosts. 

So.. She found the one.. seemingly only BDSM server left that refuses to let personal conflicts dictate policy, where she could catch up with old friends who make their way there, converse with folks on a variety of topics, make some new friends, revive her own channels, and continue to search for a dynamic that works for her, and hope that there are still men strong enough to manage a strong woman, and willing to do so without ownership as the goal. 

It probably won't be found on IRC, and that is cool. It might not be found at all. That is also cool. Maybe the second ever (or possibly third, but that maybe second one didn't really get a fair trial) of her "natural masters" will even appear and she'll end up in steel again. Also fine, but probably unlikely. 

Either way, the story, like the journey, is ever evolving, and a series of life lessons in progress - as it should be. 

"In every woman," she said, "there is something of the Free Companion and something of the Slave Girl."
~  Page 204 - Priest Kings of Gor 

"In every woman," said Ute, "there is a Free Companion and a slave girl. The Free Companion seeks for her companion, and the slave girl seeks her master."
~  Page 83 - Captive of Gor

Management Vs Macro-management Vs Micromanagement (Extreme or otherwise)

An Excerpt from the “Khaos Management User Guide”*, Addressed to Doms

Those words and the spaces in between them mean a wide scope of different things to different people. 
 As such, when used without clarification, a whole host of misunderstandings can occur. This writing is an explanation of what they mean to me and regarding me, and, more specifically, some things that do (and don't) work well for managing me, as well as some more explanations about how my brain works, and understanding some of the things that I do that might piss you off, but are NOT deliberate (and how to shut them down effectively)! 

When I think of micromanagement, I tend to think of things like the following:

• Asking permission for EVERYTHING, from getting out of (or into) bed, putting on clothing, going to the bathroom, using furniture, eating, or drinking, to leaving the house, going on a trip, talking with a friend, getting a haircut, etc.

• Being told specifically what/when/how to dress, style one's hair or makeup, groom and bathe, etc. I don't mean once in a while, or, "I want you to shave your legs/touch up your hair/get a trim today/this week". I mean like, ALWAYS having to be presented just so or having those things specifically dictated each day.

• Being told exactly what and when (like to the minute) to eat, or having very strict dietary parameters in terms of specific foods allowed/forbidden, portion sizes, and similar.

• Having to account for every minute or action of the day 

• Mandatory checking in several times a day and/or having all "free time" dedicated to one person.

• Being constantly monitored/supervised, whether on cam or in person.

• Giving unrestricted access to personal, password protected or other areas that generally have a reasonable expectation of privacy (Social media/email/messaging accounts, phone calls and messages, private conversations, etc.).

These are not the sorts of things I require, nor do really I desire any of them or their like. Some of them, some of the time, on a temporary basis, I could deal with, especially if it is for specific reasons, like reinforcing something, learning a lesson, as a disciplinary tool, or even just as a service because it pleases the D-type. I'm good with pleasing the D-type! I want that! It makes me feel accomplished, useful, and happy!

Not wanting or needing that level of (micro)management does not mean that I am fully self motivating, intuitively know what I should do, or that too much of a "hands off" approach will work with me, though. 

What I need falls more into the category of macro-management.

Likely due to being on the autism spectrum, there are lots of things that many, or even most “neurotypical” people might view as "obvious" that aren't to me. Same goes for hints and cues. More often than not, they fly right over my head. I am usually not deliberately obtuse, and I am honest and forthright, often to a fault, when queried or when I actually realise something should be shared. I am frequently, however, unintentionally obtuse or dense. I wish I weren't. I'm sorry. It is frustrating for me too! As irritating as it can be for you and others to deal with my imperfections, just imagine how I feel, having to deal with them every moment of every heartbeat of every day!

While I don't need to have someone monitoring my every moment and telling me at every turn what I should be doing or am allowed to do right then, I DO need, whether I always want them or not, clear and specific instructions regarding what is expected of me - an outline of what I should be doing regularly, may or may not do, which things require permission, at any given time, or within certain parameters, what exceptions there may be, etc. 

That means, if you say, "keep me informed of things I need to know", without specifying what sorts of things you feel are "need to know", I am left to decide on my own, and may well decide that if I handled something, or you didn't ask about it, or I don't think it is a huge deal (ie: if I am having a bad pain day, or hurt myself, but it didn't require medics or an ER visit, then I don't consider it worth mentioning other than maybe in passing if I wanna vent about it), or.. whatever, I may neglect to mention it, even if it falls into the category of "things you should know", in your mind. Not deliberately - but more out of being unsure. In the absence of clear guidelines and protocols, I am more likely to default to dealing with things or trying to figure them out myself, "not bugging you" with anything short of the impending apocalypse, and/or withdrawing into myself.
 Same goes for communication/staying in touch/checking in. I often don't think to check in unless something major has changed and/or there is something specific to report, and I rarely initiate contact unless I have something in particular to ask/tell the person in question, or I have been specifically instructed to do so. 

So, if you expect me to, say, message you every morning on waking and every night before bed, or X times per day, or to report what I have been doing and/or what daily tasks I have completed, what I have eaten, if my blood sugar has been above/below a certain threshold, etc., I need that spelled out for me. If you tell me to text you every morning, that could mean any time before noon. If you want it to be "by [time]", or, "within [X time units] of waking", each morning, then I need that information. Completion of tasks or assignments also falls into this category. If you want something finished by a certain deadline, or an essay should be a minimum and/or maximum length, or answer/address specific points, or you want a task to accomplish a particular outcome, I need to know. I don't do well with open-ended questions, prompts, or instructions. I am GREAT at problem solving and coming up with a plan for something if there is a specific goal, and I can follow precise instructions, even if I don't know the goal (though I may baulk more at those and need to be ordered to just do it).

Too often, I have heard, "You know what I meant!", when that is not, in fact, the case. I take many things literally, and rely heavily on my very pragmatic sense of logic and reasoning, so, much of the time, I assume you meant exactly what you said - nothing more and nothing less. 
If I ask for clarification, or my obedience doesn't include something that you think is obvious, but was not explicitly stated, then I probably do/did not know what you meant. Tell me, and then I will know, and probably remember it in future. In fact, I will most likely mentally add it to the list of preferences, expectations, or rules for future reference, so if it was just for that instance, you may want to tell me that too! Otherwise, I will probably refer to the last instance for handling circumstances which I believe are similar. So if I texted or called one morning and you were unhappy that I woke you up, or interrupted something, don't be surprised when I wait for you message me first, going forward, unless there is some other instruction already in place.

I don't usually need to be continually told these things, or reminded constantly of each, individual thing, as long as I have a clear list of rules/expectations laid out for me, to which I can refer if I haven't been given specific instructions for a day (or week, or...). I DO somewhat regularly need to be reminded to stay on task.

In addition to the autism spectrum disorder, I have severe, combo type ADHD. That means I tend to space things or get distracted. It isn't exactly that I completely forget them.. It's more like they drop from my radar, usually cause something else – some random sight or sound or thought or even just seemingly nothing – got in the way for the split second it takes to distract me sometimes. The odds of that happening has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how important or how much of a priority something is. It really doesn't. I will swear this on everything I hold sacred. You may not understand it. You may have trouble believing it. Perhaps you can't even conceive of a mind functioning (or malfunctioning) in that way, but mine does. If you can't come to terms with that, and take me at my word, you may as well just give up on me now, and save us both a lot of time and trouble.

I need a timeline and a roadmap for my days, and need to know you will hold me accountable to them.

If it is important to you that some things be done in a particular order, or if you want something prioritised, I need to know that. Otherwise, I will get things done in whichever way makes the most sense to me and/or works best within my other tasks, my level of pain and/or ability, or whatever else is going on for a given day.

There are a lot of things that may seem like me “just doing whatever I want”, that are really me doing the best I can with the information and orders I have. If you want to know which it is, ask me. I will tell you the truth, or at least the truth as I understand it. Sometimes, deeper introspection leads to discovery that I truly wasn't doing my best to do what I should have been doing, but if I am directed to write an essay or fully explain myself or similar, and still insist that I didn't know better, then trying to force me into “admitting” otherwise is most likely just going to make things worse. I've got a lot of experience in self-introspection, and am unlikely to shy away from a truth just because it is unpalatable. If I refuse to admit to something, even after thorough consideration, it is probably because I've done my due diligence and am telling the unvarnished truth.

At those points, instead of continuing to focus on why I “should” have known or done or understood something differently, it's really best to just clear up the misunderstanding and concentrate on finding a way to make sure I DO understand whatever it is in the future. Trust me... I'm already punishing myself MORE than enough for screwing up. Punishing me more isn't going to fix it. It will just help me feel like an utter failure. And if that is what floats your boat, we are not compatible in the least.

I hope this has been helpful.

* There is, as yet, actually no such thing as the “Khaos Management User Guide”, but this post and the ones linked from it is the closest thing to it. ;)

My Big Five Aspects Scale Personality Assessment Scores

These are my results from Dr Jordan Peterson's Personality Assessment. Apparently, a lot of people really hate his work and get really angry with their results. I suspect that might be because it appears that no punches are pulled, as I found my results to be unvarnished, and highly accurate, with only very minor exceptions. It is by FAR the most accurate one I've ever seen!

On this page, I have just straight up copied the results. At some point later, there will be links to my own writings, containing my thoughts and feedback on said results. I'm also going to be doing this guy's Self Authoring program, and based on how I feel about it, will be directly recommending it, and/or possibly devising my own take on it. But that is another post! For now, on to my results.

 

---

 

  The Big Five Aspects Scale

You have just completed assessing yourself with 100 phrases. Our systems have compared your-self-ratings to those of thousands of other people. You are being compared to men and women of all ages. This means that if you are young, your scores on neuroticism will be higher and on agreeableness and conscientiousness will be lower than if you were compared to people of your own age (with the reverse being true for older individuals). For men, their scores on agreeableness and on neuroticism will be lower than if they were just being compared to men. We decided to make the comparisons simple, so that you know where you stand in comparison to the typical person (with age and sex regarded as irrelevant).
Here are your results: You will see below where you stand in comparison to others in the general population on the major traits and their aspects:

• Agreeableness: Compassion and Politeness
• Conscientiousness: Industriousness and Orderliness
• Extraversion: Enthusiasm and Assertiveness
• Neuroticism: Withdrawal and Volatility
• Openness to Experience: Openness and Intellect

Agreeableness: Low

You are low in agreeableness, which is the primary dimension of Interpersonal interaction in the Big Five personality trait scientific model. Agreeableness has two aspects: compassion and politeness, which will be explained separately. Agreeableness is a very complex trait, with marked positive and negative elements all along its distribution. Because of this, higher scores and lower scores need to be explained at the same time.

People high in agreeableness are nice: compliant, nurturing, kind, naively trusting and conciliatory. However, because of their tendency to avoid conflict, they often dissemble and hide what they think. People low in agreeableness are not so nice: stubborn, dominant, harsh, skeptical, competitive and, in the extreme, even predatory. However, they tend to be straightforward, even blunt, so you know where they stand.

Your score puts you at the 17th percentile for agreeableness. If you were one of 100 people in a room, you would be less agreeable than 82 of them and more agreeable than 17 of them.

People with low levels of agreeableness are seen by others as competitive, colder, tougher and less empathic. They are less likely to look for the best in others, and are not particularly tolerant (an attitude that is much valued by agreeable people). They are less concerned about the emotional state of others, are willing to engage in conflict, and will sacrifice peace and harmony to make a point or (if conscientious) to get things done. People find them straightforward, even blunt. They strongly tend towards dominance rather than submission (particularly if also below average in neuroticism).

People with low levels of agreeableness are not forgiving, accepting, flexible, gentle or patient. They don’t easily feel pity for those who are excluded, punished or defeated. It is also difficult for them to be taken advantage of by disagreeable, manipulative or otherwise troublesome people, or those with criminal or predatory intent. Their skepticism plays a protective role, although it can sometimes interfere with their ability to cooperate with or trust others whose intentions are genuinely good. They also be less likely to reward good behavior or to give credit where it is due. They can cooperate, when cooperation is in their interest, but very much appreciate competition, with its clear losers and winners. They will not easily lose arguments (or avoid discussions) with less agreeable people, and can enjoy the battle. They are generally good at bargaining for themselves, or at negotiating for more recognition or power and are likely to have higher salaries and to earn more money, in consequence. People low in agreeableness are therefore less likely to suffer from resentment or to harbour invisible anger. In addition, because of their tendency to engage in conflict, when necessary, people low in agreeableness people tend not to sacrifice medium- to long-term stability and function for the sake of short-term peace. This means that problems that should be solved in the present are often solved, and do not accumulate counterproductively across time, although people close to those low in agreeableness may experience them as overbearing.

Women are higher in agreeableness than men. The mean percentile for women in a general population (women and men) is 61.5. For men it is 38.5. The fact that men are lower in agreeableness than women helps explain their much higher rates of criminal incarceration (90% male). The primary difference between criminals and non-criminals is disagreeableness. If the typical criminal is more disagreeable than 98% of people in the general population, then almost all those criminals will be male. This difference in agreeableness between men and women is largest in countries such as Norway and Sweden, where the most has been done to ensure equality of outcome between the sexes. This provides strong evidence that biological factors rather than environment and learning account for the dissimilarity.

Agreeableness, per se, is not strongly associated with political liberalism or conservatism, but this is because the aspects of agreeableness predict such political belief in opposite ways, and cancel each other out. Liberals are higher in aspect compassion, and conservatives in aspect politeness. However, alliance with the category of belief that has come to be known as politically correct is strongly predicted by agreeableness (particularly compassion). What this appears to mean is that agreeable people strongly identify with those they deem oppressed, seeing them, essentially, as exploited infants, and demonize those they see as oppressors, seeing them as cruel, heartless predators.

There are large differences between men and women in terms of spontaneous interest, and these also appear associated with agreeableness. Agreeable people, caring as they do for others, are more likely to enter professions associated with people, such as teaching and nursing, which are dominated by women. This is true even in the Scandinavian countries, where attempts to produce gender-equal societies has reached a maximum. Disagreeable people, by contrast, appear to prefer systematizing over empathizing, and are more interested in things – machines and technology. In consequence, professions such as engineering and trades associated with construction and machinery tend to be dominated by relatively disagreeable men.

Agreeableness has two aspects: compassion and politeness.

Compassion: Typical or Average

You are typical or average in compassion, which is one aspect of Agreeableness. Your score puts you at the 42nd percentile for compassion. If you were one of 100 people in a room, you would be more compassionate than 42 of them and less compassionate than 57 of them.

People who are typically compassionate people are reasonably interested in the problems of other people, and other living things. They are somewhat concerned about helping other people avoid negative emotion, but are willing to stand their ground, even when others get upset. They make time and do kind things for others, but balance that with fulfilling their own needs and interests. They have a soft side, but are not pushovers. Other people consider them reasonably sympathetic and nice, and will sometimes turn to them for a listening ear. They can be empathetic and caring. However, they are not primarily other-oriented, so they can negotiate effectively on their own behalf. This helps ensure that they get what they deserve, and shields them from the development of resentment.

 

Those who are liberal, politically, score somewhat higher in compassion than conservatives.

Women are also higher in compassion than men. The mean percentile for women in a general population (women and men) is 61. For men it is 39.

Politeness: Very Low

You are very low in politeness, which is one aspect of Agreeableness. Your score puts you at the 7th percentile for politeness. If you were one of 100 people in a room, you would be less polite than 92 of them and more polite than 7 of them.

People who are very low in politeness are not at all deferential to authority – nor are they obedient. They can be respectful, grudgingly, but only to people who clearly deserve and demand it, and they are very markedly willing to push back when challenged. They are not uncomfortable confronting other people – in fact, they may enjoy it. People very low in politeness are not motivated to avoid conflict, or to steer clear of conflict or fights. They may find themselves frequently in trouble with authority, in consequence. Their skepticism can make it very difficult for them to find a place in the middle or lower in hierarchies of power and dominance. They tend very strongly to be dominant, rather than submissive (particularly if they are also low in neuroticism).

Those who are liberal, politically, score somewhat lower in politeness than conservatives (the opposite pattern is seen with compassion).

Women are higher in politeness than men. The mean percentile for women in a general population (women and men) is 59. For men it is 41.

Conscientiousness: High

You are high in conscientiousness, which is the primary dimension of dutiful achievement in the Big Five personality trait scientific model. Conscientiousness is a measure of obligation, attention to detail, hard work, persistence, cleanliness, efficiency and adherence to rules, standards and processes. Conscientious people implement their plans and establish and maintain order.

Your score puts you at the 87th percentile for conscientiousness. If you were one of 100 people in a room, you would be more conscientious than 87 of them and less conscientious than 12 of them.

People high in conscientiousness are dutiful. They slog away until the work is done. They work hard and dislike wasting time. They are unlikely to procrastinate (particularly if they are also below average in neuroticism). If a highly conscientious person promises to do something, he or she will probably do it, even in troubled circumstances, without excuses. They are decisive, neat, organized, future-oriented, reliable and not easily distracted.

Highly conscientious people are likely to obtain higher grades in academic settings (particularly if they are also intelligent), and make good administrators and managers. They need to have everything in its proper place, and tend to be concerned with detail. They want to do things by the book. Highly conscientious people can be prone to guilt (although they are likely to organize their lives so that they have little to feel guilty about). Highly conscientious people are also susceptible to shame, self-disgust and self-contempt.

Individuals who are highly conscientious can react badly to failure (particularly if they are also above average in neuroticism). They are judgemental and easily disgusted by their own moral transgressions, as well as those of others. They suffer shame and guilt when unemployed or otherwise unoccupied, even when that occurs through no fault of their own. Highly conscientious people are also fundamentally committed to personal responsibility. They tend to be convinced that those who work hard should and will be rewarded, and that those who don’t deserve their failure. They are more concerned than average with hygiene, moral purity and achievement. They can tend towards micro-management and control.

Highly conscientious people are more likely to be political conservatives, rather than liberal (particularly if they are also low in openness).

Women are very slightly more conscientious than men. The mean percentile for women in a general population (women and men) is 51.5. For men it is 49.5.

Conscientiousness has two aspects: industriousness and orderliness.

Industriousness: High

You are high in industriousness, which is one aspect of conscientiousness. Your score puts you at the 77th percentile for industriousness. If you were one of 100 people in a room, you would be more industrious than 77 of them and less industrious than 22 of them.

Highly industrious people are likely to be successful in school and in administrative and managerial positions (particularly if they are intelligent). They value work highly and typically want to be doing something useful. They are dutiful, and tend not to put things off. They do not often mess things up. They always finish what they start, and they do it on schedule. They are frequently figuring out how to accomplish more in less time, with fewer resources. They have focus.

Highly industrious people are also likely to judge shirkers or people who are incompetent quite harshly, and to want them out of the way. They are likely to believe that people fail because they don’t apply themselves or work hard enough. They feel guilty, rapidly, if they do not do their duty. However, because they typically stay on or ahead of schedule and accept their responsibilities, they rarely experience actual guilt.

Those who are liberal and those who are conservatives appear equally industrious.

Men are slightly more industrious than women. The mean percentile for men in a general population (women and men) is 51.5. For women it is 49.5.

Orderliness: High

You are high in orderliness, which is one aspect of conscientiousness. Your score puts you at the 88th percentile for orderliness. If you were one of 100 people in a room, you would be more orderly than 88 of them and less orderly than 11 of them.

Highly orderly people tend to be disturbed and disgusted by mess and chaos. They keep everything tidy and organized. They tend to think in more black and white terms: things are good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable, with little room for grey areas. They make, like and stick to schedules. They want everything where it should be – and want to make sure it stays where it belongs. They are detail-oriented. They are rule-abiding, and tend to insist that rules are observed. They can be judgmental towards themselves and others if and when rules are broken or procedures ignored. They do not like to be without routine and predictability. They can be good at ensuring that complex sensitive processes are managed properly and carefully.

Excessive orderliness can also constrain creativity (even among those high in openness) as creative endeavours often require mess, disruption and intervening periods of chaos.

Those who are highly orderly are also more likely to be political conservatives. Orderliness is the second-best predictor of conservatism, after openness to experience.

Women are more orderly than men. The mean percentile for women in a general population (women and men) is 54.5. For men it is 45.5. This may account for some of the trouble in relation to housework between women and men. Since women are, on average, more orderly, household disorder will trigger disgust and discomfort in them faster. This may happen with sufficient frequency so they end up doing a disproportionate share of such work (even though if they waited a bit longer their less orderly partners, often men, might end up equally troubled and motivated to fix the problem). Orderly people are more likely to have items such as event calendars, drawer organizers, laundry baskets, irons and ironing boards in their immediate environments.

Extraversion: Very High

You are very high in extraversion, which is the primary dimension of positive emotion in the Big Five personality trait scientific model. Extraversion is a measure of general sensitivity to positive emotions such as hope, joy, anticipation and approach, particularly in social situations. 

Your score puts you at the 92nd percentile for extraversion. If you were one of 100 people in a room, you would be more extraverted than 92 of them and less extraverted than 7 of them.

People with very high levels of extraversion are very enthusiastic, talkative, assertive in social situations, and gregarious. They are highly energized by social contact, and crave it. They find great pleasure in planning parties, telling jokes, making people laugh, and taking part in community activities. They typically have positive memories of the past, high levels of current self-esteem (particularly if they are low in neuroticism), and experience far above average optimism about the future.

People who are uncommonly extraverted have a very difficult time keeping things to themselves, and tend to tell everyone everything. They are very self-disclosing (particularly if also high in neuroticism) and they warm up rapidly to other people. They speak first and most often in meetings. They can be extremely captivating and convincing. They will often be the first to act.

People who are very high in extraversion make strikingly enthusiastic employees, and are very well-suited to jobs involving sales, persuasion, work in groups and public speaking (particularly, once again, if they are low in neuroticism). They are not at all suited to occupations that require a lot of isolated work (such as computer programming or accounting).

People very high in extraversion can also be highly impulsive, particularly when it comes to having fun in social situations. They tend strongly to sacrifice the future to the present, when something social or group-oriented beckons. It is hard for them to be alone and to study and work. They can be very easily distracted by opportunities to chat, joke and socialize. This is particularly the case if they are also low in conscientiousness. When individuals are extraverted and conscientious, they are more productive than if they are introverted and conscientious. However, when they are introverted and unconscientious, they are more productive than they are when they are extroverted and unconscientious.
People very high in extraversion are highly dominant in social situations, particularly if they are also low in agreeableness. Less agreeable extraverts tend to be self-centered – something that can be made worse if they are also low in conscientiousness.

Those who are politically liberal are slightly less extraverted than conservatives.

Women are slightly more extraverted than men. The mean percentile for women in a general population (women and men) is 52. For men it is 48.

Extraversion has two aspects: Enthusiasm and Assertiveness.

Enthusiasm: Typical or Average

You are typical or average in enthusiasm, which is one aspect of extraversion. Your score puts you at the 53rd percentile for enthusiasm. If you were one of 100 people in a room, you would be more enthusiastic than 53 of them and less enthusiastic than 46 of them.

Individuals who are average in enthusiasm have their excitable moments, are sometimes happy, and are reasonably easy to get to know, but they are essentially moderate in their positive emotion. They will talk about things or people they find particularly interesting, but tend to keep more quiet, otherwise. They laugh and joke, but not excessively. They don’t crave the spotlight. They enjoy parties, in moderation, and generally like to be around people, but they can spend time alone. They don’t warm up immediately to others, particularly in groups, and they can keep their own affairs private. They like excitement, but only in moderate doses. They are moderately positive about the past and future.

Enthusiasm is not strongly associated with political preference, either conservative or liberal.

Women are higher in enthusiasm than men. The mean percentile for women in a general population (women and men) is 55. For men it is 45.

Assertiveness: Exceptionally High

You are exceptionally high in assertiveness, which is one aspect of extraversion. Your score puts you at the 98th percentile for assertiveness. If you were one of 100 people in a room, you would be more assertive than 98 of them and less assertive than 1 of them.

Exceptionally assertive people are “take charge” types. They put their own opinions forward extremely strongly, and constantly dominate and control social situations. Exceptionally assertive people can be extremely influential and captivating. They have the communication style that is often associated with leadership. This is good when they are knowledgeable, competent and able, but not so good when they aren’t. Assertive people are people of action. They don’t wait for others to lead the way, but leap in, heedlessly. They can be impulsive, in consequence, and can act without thinking.

 

Liberals tend to be slightly less assertive than conservatives.

Women are slightly less assertive than men. The mean percentile for women in a general population (women and men) is 48. For men it is 52.

Neuroticism: Exceptionally Low

You are exceptionally low in neuroticism, which is the primary dimension of negative emotion in the Big Five personality trait scientific model. Neuroticism is a measure of general sensitivity to negative emotions such as pain, sadness, irritable or defensive anger, fear and anxiety.
Your score puts you at the 3rd percentile for neuroticism. If you were one of 100 people in a room, you would be lower in neuroticism than 96 of them and higher in neuroticism than 3 of them.

People with exceptionally low levels of neuroticism virtually never focus on the negative elements, anxieties and uncertainties of the past, present and future. It is extremely rare for them to face periods of time where they are unhappy, anxious and irritable, unless facing a serious, sustained, complex problem. Even under the latter conditions, they cope remarkably well, very rarely worry, and recover extraordinarily quickly. They always keep their head in

They have exceptional levels of self-esteem, particularly when they are also average or above average in extraversion. They are resistant to anxiety disorders and depression (again, particularly if average or above in extraversion).

When good things happen to them, people with exceptionally low levels of neuroticism can appreciate it, and do not question whether or not they deserved it. They are extraordinarily satisfied with their relationships and careers. Overall, they are extremely tolerant of stress, and tend to breeze through even the more severe failures and setbacks of life. Exceptionally low levels of neuroticism are associated with an absence of concern about mental and physical health, very rare visits to the physician or emergency room visits, and almost no absenteeism at work and at school (particularly if accompanied by average or above levels of conscientiousness).

People with extremely low levels of neuroticism are very good at tolerating risk. If they are average or high in extraversion or openness, they may even enjoy it. They remain calm in the face of even extreme uncertainty. They can thrive in recreational, career, financial and social situations where the possibility of loss is higher. They can consider and implement career changes and other transformations that could enhance their lives with exceptional ease.

Neuroticism is not a powerful predictor of political belief, either conservative or liberal.

Females tend to be higher in neuroticism than males. The typical woman is higher in neuroticism than 60% of the general population of men and women combined. In part, this may be why women report more unhappiness in their relationships, at work, in school and with their health than men, on average, and why women initiate 70% of all divorces. This difference in neuroticism between men and women appears to emerge at puberty. It is largest in countries such as Norway and Sweden, where the most has been done to ensure equality of outcome between the sexes. This provides strong evidence that biological factors rather than environment and learning account for the dissimilarity.

Trait neuroticism is made up of the aspects withdrawal and volatility.

Withdrawal: Exceptionally Low

You are exceptionally low in withdrawal, which is one aspect of neuroticism. Your score puts you at the 1st percentile for withdrawal. If you were one of 100 people in a room, you would be lower in withdrawal than 98 of them and higher in withdrawal than 1 of them.

Individuals exceptionally low in withdrawal virtually never suffer from or are impeded by anticipatory anxiety. They can handle new, uncertain, unexpected, threatening or complex situations extremely well, from the emotional perspective. They are extremely unlikely to avoid or withdraw in the face of the unknown and unexpected.

People with exceptionally low levels of withdrawal feel sad, lonesome, disappointed and grief-stricken very infrequently – and, if they do, feel those emotions briefly and to a much lesser degree. Their lives tend to be markedly free of doubt, worry, embarrassment, self-consciousness and discouragement, even in the face of genuine threat and punishment. They are resistant to and rarely worried about social rejection, and almost never feel hurt or threatened. Even when actually hurt, frightened, or anxious, they recover strikingly easily and remarkably quickly. People with very low levels of withdrawal are simply not worriers. Technically, withdrawal has been associated with activity in the brain systems that regulate passive avoidance.

Those who are liberal, politically, are slightly higher in withdrawal than conservatives.

Women are higher in withdrawal than men. The mean percentile for women in a general population (women and men) is 60. For men it is 40.

Volatility: Low

You are low in volatility, which is one aspect of neuroticism. Your score puts you at the 11th percentile for volatility. If you were one of 100 people in a room, you would be less volatile than 88 of them and more volatile than 11 of them.

Individuals low in volatility are stable and predictable in their moods. They are not irritable, and feel much less disappointment, frustration, pain and loneliness. People find them easy to get along with and can often relax around them. They rarely express their frustration, disappointment and irritability and appear reasonable when they do so. Even on the rare occasions they become stirred up, upset, angry or irritated, they calm down quickly. They are much less argumentative than average and rarely lose their composure.

If thoroughly provoked in a dispute, a person of low volatility may react in kind (particularly if also low in agreeableness). However, such people remain calm and unperturbed, even when stressed. Volatile people tend to get upset if something bad does happen, while people high in withdrawal (the other aspect of neuroticism) tend to be concerned that something bad might happen. Technically, volatility has been associated with activity in the brain systems that regulate fight, flight or freeze.

Volatility is not strongly related to political preference, either liberal or conservative.

Women are higher in volatility than men. The mean percentile for women in a general population (women and men) is 57.5. For men it is 42.5.

Openness to Experience: Exceptionally High

You are exceptionally high in openness to experience, which is the primary dimension of creativity, artistic interest and intelligence (particularly verbal intelligence) in the Big Five personality trait scientific model. Openness to experience is a measure of interest in novelty, art, literature, abstract thinking, philosophy as well as sensitivity to aesthetic emotions and beauty. 

Your score puts you at the 98th percentile for openness to experience. If you were one of 100 people in a room, you would be higher in openness to experience than 98 of them and lower in openness to experience than 1 of them.

People with exceptionally high levels of openness to experience are almost always characterized by others as extremely smart, creative, exploratory, intelligent and visionary. They are extremely interested in learning, and are constantly acquiring new abilities and skills. They are extremely curious and exploratory. They are exceptionally interested in abstract thinking, philosophy, and the meaning of belief systems and ideologies. They live for cultural events such as movies, concerts, dance recitals, plays, poetry readings, gallery openings and art shows. They are very likely to enjoy writing (or even to be driven to write). They enjoy complex, abstract ideas and deeply love to confront and solve complex, abstract and multi-dimensional problems.

They are almost always prolific readers, and are interested in a vast range of topics. They have an exceptionally broad and deep vocabulary. They can think and learn remarkably quickly. They are unusually proficient at formulating new ideas, and can be exceptionally articulate (particularly if average or above in extraversion). People exceptionally high in openness can see old things in remarkable ways. They can think outside of the box. When they hear or come up with an idea, many other ideas are usually triggered. They can formulate any single problem in an exceptionally diverse range of ways, and can generate a tremendously large number of problem-solving solutions. They will constantly seek change, often to make things better, but also just for the sake of change.

People who are exceptionally high in openness to experience are poorly adapted to and do not do well in situations or occupations that are routinized and predictable. They fit badly at the bottom of hierarchies. They are unusually ill-suited to entry-level, repetitive, rote positions, because they are always thinking up new ways to do things, and such ideas are seldom welcome from someone at the bottom. They are extremely radical thinkers. They shake things up, particularly if they are also disagreeable and assertive. They are likely to be revolutionary rebels (particularly if average or below in conscientiousness).

Individuals exceptionally high in openness to experience are entrepreneurial in spirit, as well as smart and creative. They can be overwhelmingly interested in creating new ventures, sometimes for profit, sometimes for curiosity, and sometimes for personal transformation. Exceptionally high levels of openness to experience appear necessary to the formation and leadership of business and other forms of complex organization, although conscientiousness appears required for the attention to detail and process management that such organizations also always need.

Because people who are exceptionally high in openness to experience are interested in absolutely everything, they can find it hard to settle on a single path in life, to specialize to a necessary degree, and to create an integrated identity. This is particularly dangerous if they are above average in neuroticism and/or below average in conscientiousness. People characterized by the combination of high openness to experience and high neuroticism constantly undermine their own convictions and beliefs by incessant questioning and make themselves lost and anxious. Open, unconscientious people tend to be “under-achievers” (particularly if also above average in neuroticism). Such people appear to have the capability to succeed, can learn quickly, and are creative, but they seldom implement their ideas.

Openness to experience is the dimension that best predicts political allegiance (with conscientiousness, particularly the aspect of orderliness, coming in at second place). Those who are liberal, politically, are very much more likely to be high in openness to experience than conservatives.

Women and men differ very little in openness to experience at the trait level, although there are differences in the aspect levels.

Trait openness to experience is made up of the aspects of intellect and openness.

Intellect: Exceptionally High

Note: Do not confuse the personality aspect of Intellect with IQ. Intellect is a measure of interest in abstract ideas, essentially, while IQ is a measure of processing speed, verbal ability, working memory, and problem solving capacity, and is better measured with a formal IQ test. It is perfectly possible to have a high IQ and a low score on the personality trait of Intellect (or the reverse).

You are exceptionally high in intellect, which is one aspect of openness to experience. Your score puts you at the 96th percentile for intellect. If you were one of 100 people in a room, you would be higher in intellect than 96 of them and lower in intellect than 3 of them.

People exceptionally high in intellect are obsessed by engaging with ideas and abstract concepts. They require exposure to novel information, particularly when it is complex and sophisticated. They are extremely curious and exploratory, and actively need to find, tackle and solve challenging problems. They will constantly seek out and initiate issue-oriented discussions, and tend to compulsively read, think about and discuss idea-centered books (generally non-fiction). They are notably articulate, and can formulate ideas very clearly and exceptionally quickly (particularly if average or higher in extraversion). They have a much broader and wider vocabulary, and continually require themselves to learn new things. People exceptionally high in intellect will continually find and generate novel, creative concepts and voluntarily search for and adapt exceptionally well to new experience and situations.

People exceptionally high in intellect find complex, rapidly changing occupations asbolutely necessary and will excel at them (particularly if they are also high in conscientiousness and low in neuroticism). However, they are not at all suited to stable, straightforward and more traditional occupations, where the rules don't change, and will experience continual periods of boredom and intolerable levels of frustration in such positions. They are much more suited to entrepreneurial/creative enterprises (particularly if also high in the openness aspect of Opennes to Experience).

Liberals are higher in intellect than conservatives (although the biggest difference between the two is openness to experience at the trait level).

Women are lower than men in intellect (although not in IQ). This is probably a difference in interest: people high in intellect, compared to openness, are more likely to prefer the sciences to the arts. The mean percentile for women in a general population (women and men) is 45. For men it is 55.

Openness: Exceptionally High

You are exceptionally high in openness, which is one aspect of openness to experience. Your score puts you at the 96th percentile for openness. If you were one of 100 people in a room, you would be higher in openness than 96 of them and lower in openness than 3 of them.

The closest synonym for openness (rather than openness to experience, which encompasses openness and intellect) is creativity. Open, creative people love beauty. They must have an outlet for their creative ability, or they simply cannot thrive. They must be surrounded by art or beautiful crafts. They are extremely sensitive to color and architectural form. They love to collect things, sometimes to the point of obsession. They are exceptionally imaginative, and love to daydream and reflect on things. They are remarkably affected by music, of many genres, and are likely to be musical or artistic themselves (both of these are rare in the general population). They can get completely immersed in a book, or a movie, or in their own thoughts, and become totally oblivious to the outside world. They respond unusually strongly to beauty, creativity and art.

Open, creative people can be impractical and flighty, however (particularly if low in conscientiousness). It can be extremely difficult to transform creativity into money, or into a career. High levels of openness are, however, necessary for entrepreneurial success, and often prove useful at the top of hierarchies, even in very conservative occupations such as banking, accounting and law, which need creative people in leadership positions to provide new vision and direction.

Liberals are higher in openness than conservatives (although the biggest difference between the two is openness to experience, at the trait level).

Women are higher in openness than men. The mean percentile for women in a general population (women and men) is 56.5. For men it is 44.5.

More about the isolation/interfering limits

(This is an in-depth explanation of specific limits. For my full limits list, click here.)

I make kind of a big deal about the hard limit of not isolating me or interfering in my relationships with other people and the world, in general, and sometimes, it is misunderstood. 

The most often response I hear is a variation of, "So, you're saying you want a [commitment/dynamic/place of importance/etc] from me, but I will be at the bottom of your priority list, and I never get to have time alone with you or your undivided attention?"

No! I'm saying that I have a full and engaging life, and expect to continue doing so.

 I refuse to be placed in the position of choosing one person or other part of my life over, or to the exclusion of another. Everyone and everything in my life has a place within it, and those places can vary, depending on the situation.
The surest way to no longer be a part of my life is to give me an ultimatum involving choosing between you or someone/something else I love. The choice is automatically made, and it won't be you. Guaranteed. 
It might hurt. I might cry. I might grieve the loss of whatever we had, for a while, but it will be done and I will not regret it.

I won't blow off a shift (paid or not), skip a meeting, break a date, disobey a rule/command or interrupt time specifically slotted for one person/thing, just because something else more fun crops up, a different person wants to do something, or whatever. That is just inconsiderate and douchy! If I give my word/agree to something, I do what I said I will do, in the absence of truly mitigating circumstances.

Yes, I will bail on someone/something less urgent in a heartbeat if someone or something else urgently, legitimately NEEDS my attention. You know, like an emergency or crisis. No one gets veto power over dealing with something serious. That applies the same whether you are one in need or are the one getting pre-empted. 

 By the same token though, I expect and fully support the same in return. I can wait for the [fun thing we've been looking forward to] or go on my own or change our plans and assist, as appropriate, if someone or something important to you is imploding too! It's happened before and I'm sure it will happen again. 

Honestly, if someone chose doing something fun with me in favour of taking care of something that really needed doing - especially letting someone about whom they allegedly care suffer a crisis alone, just to spend time with me - I would most likely rethink whether they were someone worth my time anyway.

If there is a specific concern or issue about something, it can be discussed, reasonably, like adults, and if that thing is causing an actual problem (as opposed to your own issues causing a problem), it can be dealt with accordingly. 
If someone seems to be having an inordinate number of "emergencies" that coincidentally occur whenever I'm not giving them attention, and I somehow fail to notice the pattern and shut it down, for instance (not bloody likely!), or if I seemed to be approaching something in an unhealthy manner, then sure, I'd understand a discussion about it, and would try to be reasonable and objective. 

Bottom line - I'm not getting rid of someone or something important in my life just because someone else doesn't like it or feels insecure abut it. 

This also applies to deciding that the way to exert your control over me is to restrict or forbid the things most important to me on a day to day basis, like music or coffee, or things in life I specifically enjoy or believe (like camping, cigars, conventions, reading, changing my spirituality/religion or politics, or any deeply held beliefs, etc) on your whim, assuming they are not posing some actual problem, beyond you not liking it. Limiting something really important, temporarily, as a punishment for something major? Sure, I get it. As a "new set of rules"? Deal breaker. 'Why did I feel the need to add this aside?', you may wonder. Wonder no more. That example isn't the only one by any means - just one that was entertaining enough to share.
 If your own, personal strength is not enough to engender submission, and you need to break someone down in order to feel like you're in charge, then no; I am not the droid you're looking for.

If this is a problem, you may as well close down any and all of my profile pages and take your leave, because we will not mesh well.